"Some Folks Trust to Reason, Others Trust to Might"*

Fair-mindedness and candor matter. You have to be straight up with people and let 'em know. And that's why I'm writing this post...

In People v. Thomas Justice Mosk characterized the evidence surrounding the murders of Greg and Mary as "more consistent with an explosion of violence," given how badly beaten the victims were before they were killed.  I'm going to challenge Mosk's interpretation by developing my interpretation of the physical evidence as pointing to a vicious, rather than brutal, attack.

Mosk called it a brutal attack, and by this I understand him to have been characterizing it as "savagely violent."  So there was an explosion of violence into a savage attack.  I've come to see it differently because the gun was at hand before and during the attack, so I'd call the attack vicious because it was "deliberately violent."  Here you have a vicious attack which, in Mary's case, was punctuated by her being shot in the mouth.

In his book, On Evil, Adam Morton offers this definition of evil: a person's act is evil when it results from a strategy or learned procedure which allows that person's deliberations over the choice of actions not to be inhibited by barriers against harming or humiliating others that ought to have been in place.  Although it may be difficult to see it as part of a learned procedure, it's not as difficult to see a firearm as part of a strategy instrumental in getting the killer past those barriers that should have guarded Greg and Mary from being humiliated and/or harmed.  In the hands of the killer, a firearm would probably have been emboldening to him and frightening to them.

But is it all that difficult to see a firearm as part of a learned procedure?  A rifle would be part of several learned procedures acquired through military training.  Someone trained to use a rifle might use it as part of a strategy and set of learned procedures to get past the barriers against murder.  And these considerations point directly at Ralph International Thomas, who's said to have served in the military and to have served in Vietnam.  To get to the truth and maybe get justice, one must remain unbiased in considering the evidence, and the prosecution could have made this case.  A strong argument can be made that Thomas could have used his rifle was part of a strategy and set of learned procedures he picked up in the military.  His past experiences and training allowed his choice of actions to be uninhibited by barriers against harming and/or humiliating Greg and Mary.

In his book, Morton also presents a schema for thinking about violence as a transition from a pacific mode to a violent mode.  It would take a lot to provoke many people to a level of anger that would lead them to kill someone.  This makes it difficult to imagine becoming so angry that you'd take a human life.  Robert Herbert speaks to this point in Episode 3 of Dead and Gone ("The Human Condition") when he says, "It's hard for me to believe that any human being would take another person's life.  It's hard for me to understand that."  But we know that there are some who, because of their past experiences, are prone to violence; it would not take a lot to set them off. The killer may have been quick-tempered and prone to violence due to past experiences.  And this consideration points again at Ralph International Thomas because he's reported to have had a quick temper.  Consider this piece of information that I've reported in another post:

"[Claus] von Wendel also told the investigator of an incident in which Thomas had threatened to kill a woman and her dog. When von Wendel intervened, Thomas appeared to snap, left, and returned with a machete. When Thomas was distracted, von Wendel escaped unharmed. Chaffee made a tactical decision not to call von Wendel, reasoning that calling him would allow the prosecution to introduce this incident." (n Re Ralph International Thomas on Habeas Corpus, p. 14)

Let's take this story and change it in the way the prosecution would probably have changed it.  After being seen by Vincent Johnson on his way back to his bus, for some unknown reason International gets so pissed off that he snaps, goes back to his car, grabs his rifle through the open window, and goes after Greg and Mary.  His military training kicks in, he overwhelms the pair, and he kills them.  No explosion of violence.  Just anger quickly building up to the point it leads to a vicious attack

One must allow that there are the makings of a compelling argument here--one I've thought about repeatedly over the last few months.  But then I think about all the things reported about Bo.  I think of all the bullshit Weston Sudduth spewed during his interviews with Payne Lindsey and the phone conversation with Randy Turley.  Sure I might think about Vivian Cercy's testimony, too.  But I also think about these two items, with which I'll end this post:

1. "Defendant was arrested for the murders on August 26, 1985. That same day, police searched defendant's car pursuant to a warrant and seized Levi's and a blue shirt thought to have been worn by defendant on the night of the crimes, a pair of boots, and camouflage pants. Chemical testing failed to reveal the presence of bloodstains on any of these items. (People v. Thomas, p. 6)

2. "The prosecution had not established motive or produced a murder weapon. There were no witnesses to the crimes. No blood stains were found on Petitioner's [Thomas's] clothing. Petitioner had no visible scars, bruises, or other marks that might be expected after a struggle." (Thomas v. Chappell, p. 4)

And this keeps me from concluding that International did it...

*"Playing in the Band" Weir/Hunter/Hart